WH Correspondent’s Dinner - Trump evacuated, shooter in lobby

Which Fox News has in abundance? Newsmax? OANN?

The news sources you rely on simply confirm your own bias.
I don’t rely on those sources. You guys really should move beyond those sources though. I actually read as many, if not more “left” leaning sources. That’s how I know what a piece of shit the nyt is and carries a 28% “very credible” rating.
 
I don’t rely on those sources. You guys really should move beyond those sources though. I actually read as many, if not more “left” leaning sources. That’s how I know what a piece of shit the nyt is and carries a 28% “very credible” rating.
Which left leaning sources do you prefer?
 
Could someone please explain how calla at this point is any different from rammy or blue pandemic? I know some people keep saying that he's posting in good faith, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difference at this point. He'll defend anything Dear Leader does, without question.
1. You don’t know what good faith means
2. Your comprehension skills are shit because I have criticized trump frequently.
 
I don’t rely on those sources. You guys really should move beyond those sources though. I actually read as many, if not more “left” leaning sources. That’s how I know what a piece of shit the nyt is and carries a 28% “very credible” rating.
So tell us, what are your credible news sources? What's the very best of the best?
 
You have just posted anti trump blah, blah, blah. No impartial journalist writes “the extraordinary cost of trump’s bluster and blunders”. I acknowledge he submitted a $1.5 trillion pentagon budget. That is a fact. Want to discuss the pros and cons/ cons of the proposed budget? If you can’t see a military or financial benefit, or America First approach to his dealings then aren’t knowledgeable enough to discuss it. Note im not saying if you disagree with a counter argument you aren’t knowledgeable enough. But to say none exists is factually incorrect. The same applies to the rest of your sources. If you want to argue specific cuts to USAID fine, but the claims made about deaths it will cause is pure speculation and not based in facts. Just leftist speculation.
There are dozens of factual assertions on a variety of topics in the nine links I posted. You cherry picked one sentence of opinion from one of them and responded to
It as if it was the only thing I posted. Please don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if you won’t seriously engage with anything yourself.

Also the USAID cut death projections you’re taking about are linked to a damn study. Go read it and respond to it if you want, but don’t expect anyone to believe that you seriously engaged with it when you clearly didn’t.
 
I don’t rely on those sources. You guys really should move beyond those sources though. I actually read as many, if not more “left” leaning sources. That’s how I know what a piece of shit the nyt is and carries a 28% “very credible” rating.
Ok go ahead and list a few sources for us that you rely on so we can link fact-based criticisms from them that won’t cause you to throw a hissy fit
 
Ok go ahead and list a few sources for us that you rely on so we can link fact-based criticisms from them that won’t cause you to throw a hissy fit
I always love when Trumpers say that they never watch Fox News or other right-wing media but consult a "wide" variety of sources, and when you see what they do use it's nearly always some right-wing internet site or podcast or talk radio show of very dubious reliability, or they simply parrot Fox News talking points that they claim they never watch. It's no different from listening to them claim that they're "independent thinkers" who don't follow the (liberal) sheep, and yet they somehow always come to the conclusion that Trump and MAGA are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Not much independent thinking going on there.
 
Which left leaning sources do you prefer?
You assign your own ratings but my readings this morning consisted of
The Hill
Newsweek
The telegraph
the London Times
NY Post
Time
Reuters
The Wilmington Star
Fayetteville Observer
Christian Science Monitor
The Myrtle Beach Sun News
Travel Leisure
Axioms
Golf Digest
barons
Bloomberg Financial
Forbes
Business Insider
Fox Business
WSJ
Al Jazerra
PBS News
CBS News
Men’s Health
eSPN
SI
Fox News
BBC
Nat Geo
Yahoo sports
Business insider
Haaretz
Southern Living
 
You assign your own ratings but my readings this morning consisted of
The Hill
Newsweek
The telegraph
the London Times
NY Post
Time
Reuters
The Wilmington Star
Fayetteville Observer
Christian Science Monitor
The Myrtle Beach Sun News
Travel Leisure
Axioms
Golf Digest
barons
Bloomberg Financial
Forbes
Business Insider
Fox Business
WSJ
Al Jazerra
PBS News
CBS News
Men’s Health
eSPN
SI
Fox News
BBC
Nat Geo
Yahoo sports
Business insider
Haaretz
Southern Living
You mean you actually read all of those this morning? I take it that you had absolutely nothing else to do today.
 
You assign your own ratings but my readings this morning consisted of
The Hill
Newsweek
The telegraph
the London Times
NY Post
Time
Reuters
The Wilmington Star
Fayetteville Observer
Christian Science Monitor
The Myrtle Beach Sun News
Travel Leisure
Axioms
Golf Digest
barons
Bloomberg Financial
Forbes
Business Insider
Fox Business
WSJ
Al Jazerra
PBS News
CBS News
Men’s Health
eSPN
SI
Fox News
BBC
Nat Geo
Yahoo sports
Business insider
Haaretz
Southern Living
I'll join @1moretimeagain in asking which are Left-wing or Left-leaning among your list?
 
Pretty sure you will be posting the part where she read what the shooter said about Pedo's and he jumped in assuming HE himself was the subject Pedo. Good on her part to point that out.

This is going unnoticed but it is very telling. Ole Don is never mentioned by name but just assumes it’s himself being talked about in the manifesto. I love how O’Donnell pointed that out during the interview.
 
You assign your own ratings but my readings this morning consisted of
The Hill
Newsweek
The telegraph
the London Times
NY Post
Time
Reuters
The Wilmington Star
Fayetteville Observer
Christian Science Monitor
The Myrtle Beach Sun News
Travel Leisure
Axioms
Golf Digest
barons
Bloomberg Financial
Forbes
Business Insider
Fox Business
WSJ
Al Jazerra
PBS News
CBS News
Men’s Health
eSPN
SI
Fox News
BBC
Nat Geo
Yahoo sports
Business insider
Haaretz
Southern Living
So, you read the equivalent of James Kilpatrick on numerous sites.
 
You assign your own ratings but my readings this morning consisted of
The Hill
Newsweek
The telegraph
the London Times
NY Post
Time
Reuters
The Wilmington Star
Fayetteville Observer
Christian Science Monitor
The Myrtle Beach Sun News
Travel Leisure
Axioms
Golf Digest
barons
Bloomberg Financial
Forbes
Business Insider
Fox Business
WSJ
Al Jazerra
PBS News
CBS News
Men’s Health
eSPN
SI
Fox News
BBC
Nat Geo
Yahoo sports
Business insider
Haaretz
Southern Living
How many hours of reading is that?!?
 
You assign your own ratings but my readings this morning consisted of
The Hill
Newsweek
The telegraph
the London Times
NY Post
Time
Reuters
The Wilmington Star
Fayetteville Observer
Christian Science Monitor
The Myrtle Beach Sun News
Travel Leisure
Axioms
Golf Digest
barons
Bloomberg Financial
Forbes
Business Insider
Fox Business
WSJ
Al Jazerra
PBS News
CBS News
Men’s Health
eSPN
SI
Fox News
BBC
Nat Geo
Yahoo sports
Business insider
Haaretz
Southern Living
Bwahahaha you expect us to believe e you read articles from several dozen sites in a morning?
 
Let's break this down.

1. Scanning tickets - Nope, he was a registered hotel guest. That would have made no difference because he didn't need to enter the hotel.

2. Multiple layers of security stations -- There were multiple layers of security stations. You couldn't just go straight from the hotel into the dinner, as the would-be assassin found out. And of course, that is a secret service issue.

3. Limited movement for hotel guests -- Of course there was limited movement. There were quasi-public areas (think hotel dining), semi-secured areas (think the press parties), and then hardened security areas (think the dining room where the WCHD was). Is your point that they should have treated the press parties as akin to the dinner, itself? What good would that have done in this particular case? The would-be shooter wasn't hanging out at press parties.

The simple fact is that when a hotel guest decides to sneak guns onto the property in his luggage and then his plan of attack is to simply run as fast as he can past security, there is not a lot you can do unless you inspect 100% of the luggage of the 2,200 guests at the hotel, which is not even one of your suggestions.
My bad, you are totally right and everyone else who was there or had been there in years prior is wrong (other than the Trumpies who want to make sure no bad light could come to their orange god).

This event had less security than the Golden Globes, from the guy who was right next to Trump.

Not sure that is what I would want for my president, but then again, maybe this is your long game to take him out...

But at this point to keep doubling down on this not being a failure of security is laughable and figure best chalked up to internet contrarion-ism.
 
My bad, you are totally right and everyone else who was there or had been there in years prior is wrong (other than the Trumpies who want to make sure no bad light could come to their orange god).

This event had less security than the Golden Globes, from the guy who was right next to Trump.

Not sure that is what I would want for my president, but then again, maybe this is your long game to take him out...

But at this point to keep doubling down on this not being a failure of security is laughable and figure best chalked up to internet contrarion-ism.
Rather than trying to data mine articles to support a point I'm not even making, why don't you try to engage in the actual point I am discussing. Did you get a 200 on your SAT verbal score? It is like you have literally no reading comprehension whatsoever.

You have raised three points as to what the Hilton possibly could have done, one of which had nothing to do with the Hilton and zero of which would have made a rat's ass difference in the outcome last night.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about whether such events should be held at public hotels, whether the right security procedures were in place, and whether extra security should be provided for the press when they are near potential assassination targets. But none of that deals with what could have been done by the hotel to prevent the attempt last night.

You've had seven attempts to identify something and you have yet to make a cogent argument in support of your position -- instead you keep citing articles and raising irrelevant and inapposite points.
 
I’m sure O’Donnell just has TDS


He simply cannot handle any criticism at all, in any way. And his instinctive response to everything is to go on the attack, to try and bully the other person to back down and/or shut up. It's no wonder that Trumpers are so determined to take over all news media outlets, as they simply can't deal with any reporter who doesn't always toss them softball questions and simply be a cheerleader for the administration (aka Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, etc.)
 
Back
Top